This is a very funny movie. It is the funniest movie ever made about 1970's era arena-style rock bands and the music industry that surrounded it. Yeah, I know, there weren't any other parody movies made about 1970's era arena-style rock bands but, if there were a hundred of them this would be number one.

I could pick any of the scenes in the film but one of my favorites is the performance (and aftermath) of Stonehenge:

I really can't stand Rob Reiner but this film goes along way toward excusing about five or ten minutes of his otherwise ridiculous life. Same for Harry Shearer.

The fact is that this wouldn't be a very funny movie if it wasn't about 99% based on truth. But it is and because of that it's hysterically funny. Beginning to end.

The band, Spinal Tap, is all of the worst (and stupidest) elements of every hard rock band that's ever been, rolled into one big parody.

The songs (all actually performed by the actors) are first rate and absolutely ridiculous: Big Bottoms, Bitch School, Hell Hole, Gimme Some Money, and one of my personal favorites, Break Like The Wind*...

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Marty DiBergi: I don't know. Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven. Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder. Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder? Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

If you were there in the seventies and liked hard rock even a little bit (c'mon, who doesn't like Stairway To Heaven?) then you MUST see this movie.

*Break Like The Wind wasn't in the movie. The movie was so successful and the actors were so good at the music that they have since recorded a few CD's and have actually had several real concert tours. Break Like The Wind is the title tune from one of the CD's. Listen to the lyrics...they are patently ridiculous.

« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 10:11:05 PM by trapeze »

Logged

In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

Set in the Detroit of the then not-so-distant future (which I figure roughly works out to our present) crime is out of control. Detroit is a thoroughly run down, corrupt, post-industrial wasteland, and the filmmakers deserve full credit for absolutely nailing that. The film is essentially a sci-fi action vehicle for biting satire of mindless, reactionary consumerism and corrupt crony capitalism. If the filmmakers were motivated by a left wing ideology in that portrayal, they may have inadvertently missed the mark because the corporatist environment portrayed is anything but a free market.

Anyhow, in this Detroit of the (then) future, the strapped city has entered into an agreement with monolithic corporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP) to privatize and manage the police department. When an officer is brutally gunned down by a notorious gang, he is rushed to the emergency room where efforts to resuscitate him fail. Due to his body armor, his vital organs remained intact, and because he had been declared legally dead OCP decides to use him for their cyborg project to fuse a human mind with robotics. The result is the ass-kicking RoboCop who slowly begins to recover his essential humanity while doling out supreme justice to the creeps running wild in Detroit.

Just saw the new True Grit.Either I never saw the original or it was so long ago I don't remember.

Given that, I didn't have to do a comparison.

The young girl was fantastic and the story was told from her perspective.Jeff Bridges played Rooster really "gritty" and Matt Damon played a different kind of character than we're used to seeing him

Good story with enough action to keep it interesting

I give it a 2 thumbs up

Absolutely loved that movie, in every way.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

The Fifth Element is pretty good, I like movies with quirky characters, and Oldman's has to be one of the quirkiest evil dude's ever. Plus Milla is quite easy on the eyes.

I still like the original True Grit, but if there was one way to improve the original it would be to take the girl in the new version and splice her into the old! She did a heck of good job, much better than the gal in the original IMO.

I also gravitate toward war flicks like Patton, Tora Tora Tora, Midway, We Were Soldiers.

And westerns, like John Wayne flicks period, of recent variety I thought Silverado outstanding, as is Unforgiven.

Comedies? Of the dark variety I don't think Dr. Strangelove can be beat!

I can't watch it without crying like a little bitch. But I would watch it as often as I can.

I welled up just making the post and watching the trailer. Freakin guys in the gym wondered what the heck I was doin....LOLOLOL

That really is an awesome movie. I think it accomplishes exactly what it set out to accomplish.

Logged

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

You know a pretty good chick flick? "In Her Shoes"; another Shirley MacLaine movie, her as grandmother, though. It's about two sisters, and Grandmother, one irresponsible, flighty and promiscuous; the other just the opposite.

It's got several old-timer ladies in it as well - the Jewish contingent - and they are amusing.

It appealed to me because I have a sister whose neck I'd like to wring, too.

You know a pretty good chick flick? "In Her Shoes"; another Shirley MacLaine movie, her as grandmother, though. It's about two sisters, and Grandmother, one irresponsible, flighty and promiscuous; the other just the opposite.

It's got several old-timer ladies in it as well - the Jewish contingent - and they are amusing.

It appealed to me because I have a sister whose neck I'd like to wring, too.

I have seen the original movie more times than I can count. It has had, for me, both a strong attraction and some elements of repulsion. I liked just about everything about it but I was frequently irritated by the annoying performance of Kim Darby* and the overall ham-handed acting by Glenn Campbell. John Wayne did his best to carry them both and the result was a watchable and enjoyable film that has a few awkward moments. Robert Duvall is excellent in his brief role as Ned Pepper.

Before the new version came out I decided to do something that I should have done years ago. I purchased a copy of the Charles Portis short novel to read on my Kindle For Mac. It was good. And, I realized, it was almost identical to the first movie in plot, pacing and dialogue. There really was only a minor difference between the first movie and the novel and it involves how the story ends. Another minor difference would be the scenery. The first movie has its scenes shot just about everywhere but in the places described in the book. But that's Hollywood.

The second movie took more than a few liberties with the original story. There were scenes and dialogue in the new movie that were made up out of whole cloth. On the flip side, the scenery is very accurate and so is the ending. I liked the actors who portrayed Mattie Ross and La Beouf. I especially liked the portrayal of Cogburn by Bridges, the way he was much more convincingly an alcoholic, the way his speech was slurred and frequently difficult to understand. Not that I didn't appreciate John Wayne's interpretation, I did. Both Wayne and Bridges were good but in different ways.

If I could have my own version of the film it would probably consist of a Bridges and a Wayne version that didn't include the annoying Kim Darby and the stiff Glenn Campbell, that was filmed in Oklahoma, with the completely loyal to the source material script. That would be the best of all worlds.

So...I recommend that you read the book (if for no other reason than it being an excellent story well told). I recommend that you see both movies and then allow whatever fusion of the films and the book that appeals to you to naturally occur. Because that is the best you are going to get and it's worth the trouble.

*Seriously, I found Kim Darby's interpretation of 14-year-old Mattie Ross to be so mind numbingly irritating that in the finale I was rooting for the snakes. I found myself imagining that Ned Pepper loses his temper and shoots her through the temple just to get her to shut up. Or that Tom Chaney, given the opportunity to kill the Texas Ranger, bashes Darby's brains out instead. I don't normally fantasize about the violent death of young women so you can imagine just how much I loath Kim Darby's performance in this movie. Glenn Campbell is, by comparison, merely wooden and more of a waste of space rather than a focus of overwhelming annoyance.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 06:10:10 PM by trapeze »

Logged

In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."